Judge adds evidence to public record in Trump case

A four-part appendix More details about former President Donald Trump’s alleged criminal attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election became public Friday.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan approved the public release of the federal criminal docket in Washington, DC, late Thursday, after weeks of Trump requesting that the appendix be kept out of the public eye.

Trump told the judge on Oct. 10 that he needed more time to weigh his “trial options” if she decided to publicly admit the source material, arguing it could harm jurors and the integrity of the case. Chutkan agreed to give him a week to respond and present his arguments against blocking the release. He filed a final motion early Thursday asking for more time, but it was denied.

The appendix is ​​split into four parts, with sensitive information redacted. The four parts total more than 1,800 pages.

Part I They are primarily transcripts of interviews with witnesses who testified before the House of Representatives committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

However, there is a new detail in this first part that stands out: testimony before the January 6 committee from a White House official against Trump.

The clerk told the committee that on Jan. 6, as Trump was preparing to play his speech when violence broke out, Trump asked him if his “speech was cut short.” The clerk told the committee he was trying to explain to Trump that this was so.

The filing shows that the clerk appears to be looking at photos with the committee’s investigative attorney from Jan. 6 when testifying about Trump’s response.

“And that’s kind of the face I got the whole time, and it was kind of like he was saying to me, really? And I thought, yes, sir,” the clerk said.

This transcript with the clerk was released previously – by House Republicans. But Smith’s version debunks what they redacted.

The version published in March by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), the chairman of the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, edited the section in which the clerk tells investigators that after Trump said “let’s go take a look” when told his speech had been cut short, The attendant took off Trump’s top coat, set up a television for him and handed him a remote control.

“And he starts looking at it. And I got out to get him a Diet Coke, came back in, and that was it for me, as he looked at it and was happy to see it for himself,” the clerk testified, according to Smith’s version.

The Republican version of the transcript was also redacted when congressional investigators then asked the clerk, “So you turned on the TV. Did you set it up so he could watch his speech or report live on what was happening in the Capitol?

“He’s usually in the back dining room,” the clerk said.

The contents of the transcript with the clerk were cut off here in Smith’s attachment when investigators asked the clerk if he indeed knew whether Trump was watching the events at the Capitol.

Part IV contains information that is largely already public and was obtained through the House of Representatives committee of January 6. Much of this 384-page document is redacted and doesn’t offer much new to think about. There are already known letters and emails about the strategy to advance fake voters, as well as Pence’s January 6, 2021 letter, which states that he did not have unilateral authority to determine which electoral rolls should be counted.

It also includes a transcript of a May 2023 town hall in which Trump defended his comments at the rally on the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021, and denied telling people to march on the Capitol that day.

Trump’s next major deadline in the election subversion case comes on November 7, when he must respond to the 165-page immunity letter that special counsel Jack Smith filed on October 2. If he does, Trump’s lawyers are expected to emphasize that Trump sincerely believed there was widespread voter fraud and that he first acted in the nation’s interest to overturn his defeat.

Trump’s lawyers are also expected to push back on key distinctions Smith made around Trump as a candidate for another term versus Trump as commander in chief.

Smith’s immunity letter provided insight into Trump’s alleged behavior and state of mind before and on January 6, 2021, and included information about alleged efforts to advance fake voters in swing states he lost to Joe Biden and pressure former deputy President Mike Pence to overturn the election. the results.

Smith delved into tweets, emails and testimony from dozens of Trump White House officials, insiders and allies to piece together the contours of the sweeping conspiracy that culminated in a violent, armed and deadly attack on the US Capitol. Importantly, the letter also addressed which of Trump’s actions were and were not “official,” Smith said, under the Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity decision.

The Supreme Court ruling granted presidents absolute immunity for their core actions and “presumptive” immunity for all other official actions. But actions outside the core actions do not enjoy this protection.

It will be up to Chutkan to decide whether Smith’s interpretations and attempts to refute the “presumptive” immunity standards can survive the standards now set by the nation’s highest court.

This is a development story. Check back later for updates.